The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-10-28
SIX HOURS OF ORATORY.
THE COURT FIXES THE LIMIT IN
THE ANARCHIST CASES.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27.-Anticipation of
the argument before the United States
Supreme Court to-day upon the petition for
q writ of error in the Chicago Anarchists
case attracted to the capitol crowd of
eager people, who seemed as anxious to gain
admission to the court room as if the An
archistS themselves were to be present in
chains and leg fetters and to argue their
own case in person. More than an hour be-
fore the court assembled the court room
was densely packed with people, who not
only occupied all the seats provided for
spectators, but encroached upon the pre-
cincts of the bar and stood in a closely
packed throng in the open spaces on
each side of the door. Even out
in the corridor there was a crowd
endeavoring to at least get glimpse of the
interior of the court room through the en-
trance. The audience was destined, how
ever, to be at least for a time disappointed.
When the court was called to order at ~
o'clock, and the candidates for admission to
the bar had been sworn the Chief Justice
announced that the court would proceed
with the unfinished business of yesterday
This unfinished business was a case from
Louisiana, which, however important to the
litigants, had very little popular interest.
READY FOR THE ARGUMENT.
The argument in the Louisiana case was
concluded at :05 o'clock and the Chief JUS
tice said: I'VE are ready now to hear the
motion for writ of error in the case of
Spies and Others"
Gen B. F. Butler asked the court how
much time would be allowed for argument.
Mr.. Tucker represented, he said, the aior-
ity of the petitioners He himself repre-
sented two of them, whose cases were In some
respect different from those of the others.
He would not speak merely for the sake of
speaking, but he would not like to be hur-
ried The Chief Justice asked how much
time he desired. Gen. Butler said he would
like an hour and half for himself and an
hour and half for his associate, Mr..
Tucker
The Chief Justice said: every well We
will allow you three hours on a side"
Attorney General Hunt, of Illinois, said
that he and his associates did not yet know
what scope the argument would take and
could not say how much time they would
desire. He would like, however, to have an
opportunity given to his associate, Mr..
Grinnell, to speak The Chief Justice said
that each side would be allowed three hours
and that Mr.. Grinnell might speak.
TUCKER OPENS THE ARGUMENT.
t1:15 o'clock ]. Randolph Tucker opened
the argument in support of the petition for
a writ of error. He said that it was not
necessary for him to show as condition
precedent to the granting of the writ that
the action complained of in the court be-
low was actually repugnant to or
in violation of the constitution. 1t
was only necessary to show that
a conflict had arisen and that there was
q question whether the action complained
of was not repugnant to the constitution.
That was enough to give this court juris-
dlction. 1t was the object of the statute of
1867 to give free access to this court in all
cases where there was a question Of this
kind. 1t was not necessary to show repug
nancy but only a conflict. If there
is a conflict then this court has
jurisdiction, and if it has juris-
diction then the petitioners are entitled to
their writ as a right. "This court said
Mr.. Tucker, ''is a city of refuge from the
avenger of blood, and any man who comes
here and takes hold of the horns of justice
should not be repulsed." The policy of this
court, he said, had been to deal literally
with petitions for writs of error in civil
cases. How much more should it deal lib
orally with a petition for a writ of error
in a criminal case involving issues of
life and death; in a case where
life was about to be taken away in viola
ton of the constitution. Mr. Tucker then
proceeded to a careful analysis of the
fourteenth amendment, and an attempt to
ascertain the meaning of the words, due
process of law"
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.
In arguing upon the merits of the case,
Mr.. Tucker said that it was not necessary
that the law of the State should be abso-
al
order to give this court jurisdiction of a
case under it. If law, seemingly fair and
Just ON its face, should have put upon it by
the State courts a construction contrary to
the constitution, that was enough to give
this court jurisdiction. If any department
of a State government violates the terms of
the fourteenth amendment, it is the State
which violates. Mr.. Tucker then reviewed
the history of the adoption of the fourteenth
amendment, and said, although it was
originally intended to guarantee particu-
larly the rights of enfranchised blacks, there
was no reason why white citizens should
not also enjoy the benefit of its provisions
Mr.. Tucker quoted the fourteenth amend
ment and discussed the meaning
of the words ''due process of
law" and said that although it
had been held by this court that trial with
out indictment by grand jury might be
que process OF law, ana lllBnU Dc per-
fectly constitutional, it had never been held
nor intimated that trial by a petit jury
could be dispensed with. 1t seemed, he
said, to be everywhere conceded that due
process of law" required trial by jury of
ones peers. After quoting copiously from
authorities and adjudged cases in
support of this position, MIR. Tucker
said: ''Now, if have succeeded
in showing that due process Of law means
trial by jury, the question arises what kind
OF jury, for it is of the essence OF jury
trial that it shall not be before packed
jury, that juror shall not have made up
his mind before the case is heard that |
ought to be hanged. 1t is essential that the
jury should be unbiased, unprejudiced and
lmpartiak and that it should not be a
class jury" Mr.. Tucker then asserted
that the jury law of the State of Illinois
was unconstitutional in that it provided
that the forming of an opinion from reports
or from newspaper accounts OF certain
transactions should not necessarily dis
qualify a person having such an opinion
from sitting in judgment upon that transac-
tion as a Juror Even although the law
might seem to be fair and just, if by con-
struction and administration it were
made to deny to prisoners the right OF trial
by fair and impartial jury then such con-
struction and administration constituted
the law and made it unconstitutional.
ANOTHER QUESTION.
Turning to another question raised, which
he said was a new one in this court, he
quoted the second claase of the fourteenth